WEC 48

[Luke]

I didn't even think the decision was controversial at all. 1-3 was Henderson, 4-5 was Cerrone.

Exactly

At least one person can score a round

Back to boxing me thinks.

I bet you dont even know how to score a round .I'd bet money on it.

[Luke]

I gave rounds 3-4 to Cerrone clear as day, and rounds 1-2 to Henderson, round five I gave to Cerrone because he was the one who was still working, he locked in TWO subs in that round if I remember rightly, and he was winning the standup as well.

Side note, I changed my mind after I saw the lines out and put out a couple bets more.

1.6u to win 1u on Mizugaki
1.3u to win 1u on Garcia(American MMA> Japanese(korean in this case) MMA)

Round 3 to Cerrone clear as day ?


Wow just wow

[poopoo333]

I bet you dont even know how to score a round .I'd bet money on it.

LOL

[Luke]

You and anyone else who scored round 1 for Cerrone have no idea how to score a fight.I actually know the rules on how a fight is suppose to be scored so ....You dont score a fight by "who you feel" on what "you feel is important" you score it by the rules.Scoring MMA is done by 4 categories:

effective striking,

effective grappling

control of the fighting area

effective aggressiveness and defense


The rounds are to be scored on those four categories in that order

In round 1 Henderson landed about 30 strikes to Cerrone's 5 so the most important categorey with the most weight goes to Henderson.The grappling I'll give to Cerrone for the attempted submissions .The octagon control and aggressiveness and defense both go to Henderson

So if A fighter wins the most important categorey in scoring and two of the other three how does he lose the round??

Its funny because everytime someone disagrees how I score a round its exactly how the judges score it.Maybe you guys just dont know how to score a round and should learn the rules.

Just because you think Cerrone should win the round because of the submission attempts doesnt mean thats how its scored.Strikes are scored first not grappling.

Just like Saturday I gave round 2 in the Mousasi-King Mo fight to Mousasi .Ludocain said I was nuts because strikes from the bottom dont mean anything.Ah yes they do .There are still the first thing judges are looking for.Sorry Ludo but grappling is still second in scoring.Just because King Mo was on top the whole round doesnt mean he won it not when Mousasi landed 35-5 strikes.Its amazing that all three judges also gave Mousasi round 2

Learn the rules guys

[poopoo333]

Luke, what did you think about the Shogun/Machida judging?

[zY|]

I'm not gonna waste my time responding to all that since Luke is just trolling anyways. Good thing you and Doug Crosby score rounds the same though. I'm glad you're excited about that.

[Luke]

I'm not gonna waste my time responding to all that since Luke is just trolling anyways. Good thing you and Doug Crosby score rounds the same though. I'm glad you're excited about that.

LOL I'm trolling because I know how to score a round and the rest of you are scoring rounds on what "you" think is important and not what the rule book says

good one

I completely explained it to you and now you dont want to respond because you know you're wrong and score rounds wrong

[SPX]

^^^^^ I think your oversimplifying the situation in a big way. It's clear that even the judges don't really agree on exactly how they should score a fight. Yes, they have the listed criteria, but how do you think one judge gives a fight 30-27 to one guy while another gives it 30-27 to the other guy (and how many times have we seen this)?

Also, "effective striking" etc is subjective. For instance, I remember Cecil Peoples saying that he credited Machida with "effective grappling" because he was able to stuff Shogun's takedowns . . . but I believe another judge gave Shogun the "effective grappling" edge as well as the "aggression" points because Shogun was going for takedowns in the first place. Or how about the fact that one judge gave Machida "octagon control" because he evaded some of Shogun's strikes and made Shogun move forward and therefore "took the fight where he wanted it."

Or how about this. What is "effective striking?" Is it one guy who lands 10 medium shots in a round or his opponent who lands one good bomb that rocks him?

Clearly there is lots of room for interpretation.

[zY|]

I'm not gonna waste my time responding to all that since Luke is just trolling anyways. Good thing you and Doug Crosby score rounds the same though. I'm glad you're excited about that.

LOL I'm trolling because I know how to score a round and the rest of you are scoring rounds on what "you" think is important and not what the rule book says

good one

I completely explained it to you and now you dont want to respond because you know you're wrong and score rounds wrong

No I assumed you're trolling because 98% of the time you are.

And it speaks volumes about your 'knowledge' (as well as your reading comprehension) that you think striking is weighed higher than grappling, when they are in fact weighed the same.

[Luke]

^^^^^ I think your oversimplifying the situation in a big way. It's clear that even the judges don't really agree on exactly how they should score a fight. Yes, they have the listed criteria, but how do you think one judge gives a fight 30-27 to one guy while another gives it 30-27 to the other guy (and how many times have we seen this)?

Also, "effective striking" etc is subjective. For instance, I remember Cecil Peoples saying that he credited Machida with "effective grappling" because he was able to stuff Shogun's takedowns . . . but I believe another judge gave Shogun the "effective grappling" edge as well as the "aggression" points because Shogun was going for takedowns in the first place. Or how about the fact that one judge gave Machida "octagon control" because he evaded some of Shogun's strikes and made Shogun move forward and therefore "took the fight where he wanted it."

Or how about this. What is "effective striking?" Is it one guy who lands 10 medium shots in a round or his opponent who lands one good bomb that rocks him?

Clearly there is lots of room for interpretation.

I judge by the rule book just as I do in boxing.

Effective Striking:

Clean Strikes
1. The fighter who is landing both effective and efficient clean strikes.
2. There are two ways of measuring strikes:
-the total number of clean strikes landed (more efficient)
-the total number of heavy strikes landed (more effective)

G. The heavier striker who lands with efficiency, deserves more credit from the Judges than total number landed.
1. If the striking power between the fighters was equal, then the total number landed would be used as the criteria.
2. The total number of strikes landed, should be of sufficient quantity favoring a fighter, to earn a winning round.

H. Strikes thrown from the top position of the guard, are generally heavier and more effective than those thrown from the back.
1. Thus a Judge shall recognize that effective strikes thrown from the top guard position are of "higher quality", than thrown from the bottom.
2. The Judge shall recognize that this is not always the case.
However, the vast majority of fighters prefer the top guard position to strike from. This is a strong indication of positional dominance for striking

[SPX]

First off, did you get that shit from a boxing site or an MMA site? Because it's two different sports.

Second, as I said before, the very fact that judges score fights so differently sometimes makes it clear that there is a lot of room for interpretation. You can either choose to acknowledge that or you can be obstinate.

[zY|]

First off, did you get that shit from a boxing site or an MMA site? Because it's too different sports.

Second, as I said before, the very fact that judges score fights so differently sometimes makes it clear that there is a lot of room for interpretation. You can either choose to acknowledge that or you can be obstinate.

He interprets the rules the way he feels like, then tells those who disagree with them that they're wrong. A hypocritical broad constructionist, if you will.

[Luke]

First off, did you get that shit from a boxing site or an MMA site? Because it's two different sports.

Second, as I said before, the very fact that judges score fights so differently sometimes makes it clear that there is a lot of room for interpretation. You can either choose to acknowledge that or you can be obstinate.

Two different sports OMG you guys are great

This came straight from the Nevada State Athletic Commission MMA rules its not two different sports you goof

[Luke]

First off, did you get that shit from a boxing site or an MMA site? Because it's too different sports.

Second, as I said before, the very fact that judges score fights so differently sometimes makes it clear that there is a lot of room for interpretation. You can either choose to acknowledge that or you can be obstinate.

He interprets the rules the way he feels like, then tells those who disagree with them that they're wrong. A hypocritical broad constructionist, if you will.

I'm wrong ,the judges are wrong everyones wrong that knows the rules on how to score a fight but Zy's right that doesnt even know the rules how to score a round .OK that makes sense

[SPX]

Two different sports OMG you guys are great

This came straight from the Nevada State Athletic Commission MMA rules its not two different sports you goof

Okay, you got me. I just scanned it and didn't catch the shit about strikes from the guard.

Either way, my point about the subjectivity of all of it still stands. You act like it's simple, but it's not. It may be in theory, but not in practice. That's why judging is in the state it's in in the first place.

[Ludo]

Actually being on top and getting the takedown everytime(just about) covers effective grappling and octagon control. 2 is better than 1, not to mention strikes from the bottom do far less damage and if it wasn't for the fact that Mousasi landed a fuck ton of them Mo would have come out looking like a rose.

As far as Cerrone/Henderson 1 goes: http://fightmetric.com/fights/Henderson-Cerrone.html - FM scores it for Cerrone.

http://www.sherdog.com/news/news/WEC-43 ... ults-20269 -Sherdog scores it for Cerrone.

http://mmajunkie.com/news/16450/wec-43- ... esults.mma Junkie scores it for Henderson.

Clearly this is another controversial decision, as it was at the time. It was a close fight that saw large swings in momentum. Henderson getting takedowns before Cerrone almost ended the fight with some really deep submission attempts. So lets abandon this "your an idiot if you scored it this way" nonsense, eh?

[zY|]

L. Criteria Evaluation
1. Each judge is to evaluate which fighter was most effective. Thus striking and grappling skills are top priority.
2. Evaluating the criteria requires the use of a sliding scale. Fights can remain standing or grounded. Judges shall recognize that it isn't how long the fighters are standing or grounded, as to the scoring the fighters achieve ,while in those positions.
3. If 90% of the round is grounded one fighter on top, then:
-effective grappling is weighed first.
-clean striking is weighed next. If clean strikes scored in the round, the Judge shall factor it
in. Clean Striking can outweigh Effective Grappling while the fighters are grounded.
-octagon control is next (pace, place & position)

4. The same rational holds true if 90% of the round were standing. Thus:
-clean striking would be weighed first (fighter most effective)
-clean grappling second (any takedowns or effective clinching)
-octagon control which fighter maintained better position? Which fighter created the situations
that led to effective strikes?

5. If a round was 50% standing and 50% on the ground, then:
-clean striking and effective grappling are weighed more equally.
-octagon control would be factored next

6. In all three hypothetical situations, effective aggressiveness is factored in last. It is the
criteria of least importance. Since the definition calls for moving forward and scoring, it is
imperative for the Judges to look at the scoring first.

7. Thus for all Judges scoring UFC fights, the prioritized order of evaluating criteria is:
-clean strikes and effective grappling are weighed first.
-octagon control
-effective aggressiveness

Luke thinks striking is more important because it comes first in the sentence. LOL!

[Ludo]

Just how do you define effective striking, even using that criteria? The guy who lands 25 high percentage jabs that don't do any damage and one low percentage power punch that didn't phase his opponent or the guy who landed 10 jabs and 3 counter lefts that dropped his opponent for 2 knockdowns? Effective striking would dictate that the one who lands more would win the round but no way in hell the judges will give it to the guy who found himself on his ass twice.

Clean Strikes
1. The fighter who is landing both effective and efficient clean strikes.
2. There are two ways of measuring strikes:
-the total number of clean strikes landed (more efficient)
-the total number of heavy strikes landed (more effective)

G. The heavier striker who lands with efficiency, deserves more credit from the Judges than total number landed.
1. If the striking power between the fighters was equal, then the total number landed would be used as the criteria.
2. The total number of strikes landed, should be of sufficient quantity favoring a fighter, to earn a winning round.

H. Strikes thrown from the top position of the guard, are generally heavier and more effective than those thrown from the back.
1. Thus a Judge shall recognize that effective strikes thrown from the top guard position are of "higher quality", than thrown from the bottom.
2. The Judge shall recognize that this is not always the case.
However, the vast majority of fighters prefer the top guard position to strike from. This is a strong indication of positional dominance for striking


Still sure strikes from the bottom count for shit? Judging using that exact criteria, shots from the top count more than shots from the bottom. Good thing they weren't in Nevada...

[Luke]

Luke thinks striking is more important because it comes first in the sentence. LOL!

Cerrone lost 3 of 4 categories how did he win the round ZY? You yet to explain how he won the round even though I did you just dance around the question like a politician.You started this by saying:

Even if you scored round 1 for Henderson (which btw not only makes you wrong but a bad person),

But you have gave zero reasons why ,you just poke insults at people and tell them they are wrong because you dont know the rules and score fights just as SPX said on "what you think is important"

[Luke]

2. The Judge shall recognize that this is not always the case

Still sure strikes from the bottom count for shit? Judging using that exact criteria, shots from the top count more than shots from the bottom. Good thing they weren't in Nevada...

I'm as sure as reading the sentence above .When you get outlanded 35-5 they mean something.Sure if it was 20-15 the top guy wins the round but the strikes in round 2 werent even remotely close